The Bible's Flat Earth

Sure Granny, If you say so. It's a spiritual comment. If you don't read scripture, You may not get it. Birth as a MAN, correct. It means that when you read the words, no matter what the language or translation happens to be, God is speaking to you. No. I take the words as literally words from God to me. God is making a point about something. I look forward to a study on this phase just because it confuses you. And the only way for me to study this phrase, which is so critical to your understanding of scripture, is for me NOT to approach it as a mistake, but as a true statement.If it was a mistake...I'd be a moron to give it a second thought. Why should I study mistakes?Instead, Ill give the attention you think it deserves. my bad Compiling/counting/totaling/tracking or noticing "mistakes" in the Bible? Good luck with that.

That is part 1 of the three parts to contextual reading, you know that. No reason to actually. The message is getting through without your assistance.Most people can't measure the curvature of the earth. Practically speaking, it's flat.

No they didn't.Job is older so is part of what David already knows.
Job 26,7
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
No "foundations" here.Gen 10,25"for in his days was the earth divided;"
So, literally, that's not fixed.Psalm 104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; the eighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down."
So. literally, that's not fixed."all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11).
So Literally, THAT'S not fixed and immobile.So your premise is wrong.
The writers didn't think what you say.
Understanding scripture is not as simple as taking a sentence or three out of context.Edited by Sky-Writing, : .

Sky, It's a meaningless distraction which has no place in this discussion. That is your assertion. I see no reason to believe or assume that, nor is divine inspiration the topic of this thread. Such is the arrogance of the literalist Christian. You take a set of books written centuries before your birth and, somehow, make it all about you. How pathetically self-obsessed. And with this you reveal that you have no intention of critically analysing the Bible at all. If you insist in taking, as a starting assumption that the text is unquestionably the word of God, you are letting your prejudices poison the well of inquiry.Worse, you actually seem to think that this fallacious behaviour, where you assume your conclusion before even starting to make inquiries, is a virtue. It is not. It is a logical fallacy and a recipe for delusion. How do you know if they are mistakes, if you study them with a mind already closed? I have already told you that I am not trying to compile Biblical errors. It is rather obnoxious of you to keep lying about it. Yes. It also just so happens to be the only measure of the text about which we can be objective. Just because a text can be read in different symbolic ways, doesn't mean that you can throw out the basic meaning. You seem to imagine that the Bible authors, amongst the most educated people of their day (certainly with regards to the OT), were unable to describe an orbit, in their own language. You must think them imbeciles. The lack of respect that some Christians seem to have for the authors of their own foundational myths continues to amaze me.Only a simpleton would attempt to describe an orbiting body by calling it "fixed, immobile". The text is not describing an orbit. That is just an imaginative apologetic, cooked up by those, like yourself, whose faith is so weak that they cannot accept any hint of inaccuracy in their precious Bible. That is what I have been saying throughout. The earth does indeed seem flat. That's why the Bible authors thought it was flat! Of course they did; most people did when the OT was written and I'm sure many did during the writing of the NT. This is not an unreasonable error to make, in fact, it's completely understandable. The authors wrote as they did, reflecting the knowledge contemporaneous with their place and time.Now if the books clearly described a planet orbiting a sun, now that I would be impressed with. But they don't. Are you having English comprehension problems or something? You don't hang things from foundations. That's not how foundations work. If you're trying to hang things upon foundations, ur doin it rong.You cite Job, yet Job does refer to the foundations of the earth in Job 38:4; "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."Your quote does not discount foundations and your interpretation is contradicted. Desperate. This clearly refers to the division of nations, not of the earth itself. I never said that the text contained no contradictions. That was your claim. However, I don't see this as a serious point. The earth is described as fixed in place, not completely unalterable. Clearly individual parts of the earth can move - something as simple as an earthquake is enough to demonstrate that. The authors would have been referring to the earth as a whole being fixed, not its constituent parts.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

That is correct. The earth is hanging upon nothing. So it has no "foundations". This is older text. More recent writers know this these writings as background to what they write.So there are no "foundations" that the earth sits upon, because it is already hanging. You agree. So our understanding of the word "FOUNDATIONS" must take this idea into account. We call that "Literary Criticism". I'd love to look over your guidelines, though you've not made any reference to the guidelines you use.Here's an example:Bible Study Tract: Historical-Critical MethodEdited by Sky-Writing, : Defining Criticism.Edited by Sky-Writing, : .

Sky, You are talking nonsense. The Book of Job is, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, not older than the Book of Job.

quote:

---

Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

---

Do you understand?There are many references to foundations, compared to only one about being hung on anything. Nor does my argument depend upon the foundations quotes, which I consider to be amongst the least important evidence.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Sky,I'm new here, slowly catching up. You made the comment regarding mistakes in the Bible:Compiling/counting/totaling/tracking or noticing "mistakes" in the Bible? Good luck with that.I take it you assume the Bible is error free. From personal experience, there are hundreds if not thousands of contradiction and errors int the Bible. The problem lies in the fact, ANY mistake can be explained away if one is willing to add/subtract/ ignore the context of scripture. Its what apologists do. Logic and rationale thought are thrown by the wayside to come up with some of the most inane, implausible unlikely scenarios to solve problems.Let me ask you this. Can you give me an example of a contradition? Just make one up. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

*******Might those who pretend to represent Christ now speak to the issue at hand?I believe Granny Magda has already cleaned your clock, but, this worthy thread posits questions critical to Christianity's self-perceived World Mission.Therefore, I say, Let us on with it. [indent]I have long asserted in this forum that:
[size=3]

The Bible never speaks of earth as if it were a globe; much less a planet.

[/size=3]
Moreover, [size=3]

The Bible never speaks of "earth" as it were anything larger than Alexander's Macedonia;

​

And, never speaks of "world" as it were anything larger than the territories ruled by Rome.

[/size=3] [/indent] Accept my challenge, if you dare. Come now, let us reason together. If, on the other hand, you wish to behave as sore losers, you may, at this time, skulk away. Thank you for your response.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Given your assertion in "Not The Planet" concerning the words translated as earth and world, how does that change what the author's are saying in the verses presented to reflect a flat planet?I thought about your other thread concerning the words earth and world when I read this thread. I am curious how that changes whether the author's were describing a flat planet or not. I would think your assertion would counter that idea in some cases.From Message 1: (I added Hebrew word.) I'm going to avoid using the word earth to hopefully avoid confusion. So Granny is saying that these verses say the planet is fixed and immobile.As you know erets means land, ground, or country and tebel refers to inhabited land.So how does this change what the author was telling his audience?1 Chronicles 16:30 is part of a song of thanks to God. We need to look at the song for what it was celebrating. David had victory over his enemies, the Ark was in Jerusalem. David's throne was secure. The nation of Israel was secure.This verse actually uses both words. The word erets is used several times in this song. Given your assertion, IMO, this song and this verse specifically aren't speaking of the planet. David is speaking of the country around him and his kingdom. His kingdom is firmly established and cannot be moved. (Little did he know.)Psalm 93:1 I addressed in Message 312 and still feel the writer seems to be talking about their civilization. The song speaks of leadership, not creation. Their civilization is firmly establish and cannot be moved.IMO, Psalm 96 is also referring to God's greatness and the security of the civilization, namely Israel. Given that the Psalms are songs, which are creative writing by nature; I think it is difficult to take our English translations so literally. Psalm 104 is another song of praise. Again I don't think the writer is speaking of a flat planet. but that God created the ground he stands on and it won't go anywhere.The same for Isaiah 45:18. The writer isn't referring to the planet as not moving, just the ground. Realistically, I don't feel the planet moving. I would not describe the ground in my backyard as moving. I would describe it as a foundation on which I build and walk. That doesn't mean I consider the planet to be flat.From Message 1
In this verse the Aramaic word "ara" is used for land both times. It is equivalent to erets. When we take the planetary meaning out of erets, then in a vision Daniel sees a tall tree in the middle of the land, not the middle of the planet. Along the same lines as Matthew 4:1-12.Job 38:14, also makes more sense when the idea of planet is taken away and ground or country is understood.Isaiah 40:22 uses the word erets. The verse makes more sense if country or land is understood and not planet.Given your assertion, I feel the writers wrote from a human perspective and view of the land around them, not from a planetary viewpoint.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

I don't believe the authors imagined a flat planet. I don't believe they imagined any kind of planet other than the ones they already knew, and those were lights in the sky. Global theory was new and was not well received at the time Genesis was being written (c. 500 BC). It was considered to be a "godless theory." It was not embraced by the Apostles (1st century), nor by the early Church (4th century). And while the later Church (13th century) conceded existence of the terraqueous globe, it did not by any stretch of the imagination believe that the globe is in motion. Thus, when confronted with Copernicus et al in the 16th century they quoted these passages of scripiture in defense of their position.Interestingly, it appears that the word "earth" was not, at that time, commonly used to describe the terraqueous globe; at least not among the religious. Even today, at least one dictionary suggests that "earth" is only secondarily a reference to the planetary globe; the primary meaning being "soil" or "ground." See: American Heritage DictionaryAs you may have already deduced from my answer, - I think my assertion counters that idea in every case. Indeed. And as it is based on a word for "stream" it suggests to me a river valley. A flood plain. The most likely place for civilization to appear, and indeed the very sort of place where all the great civilizations (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Indus Valley) did appear. As you have said:

quote:

---

"...the writers wrote from a human perspective and view of the land around them, not from a planetary viewpoint."

---

I couldn't say it better myself. And thus my perpetual and adamant assertion that:

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

the 13 century philosophers and church leaders believed that the sun and everything else revolved around the earth, not the other way around.

Indeed they did!They did not, however, deny the sphericity of the terraqueous globe. By the end of the 13th century the Church had conceded what I call "global" [or "big ball"] theory. That is the Pythagorean assumption (circa 500 BC) that all the lands and all the seas are wrapped together upon the surface of an immense ball (Latin: globus), which is so very big that observers on the ground tend to think of it as flat. Most ancient philosophers disagreed with this idea until Aristotle (c. 300 BC) argued in favor of the "big ball" theory although for a different reason than that which had inspired the Pythagoreans.But Aristotle did not believe that the "big ball" is in motion; neither rotating nor orbiting the sun. Some Greek philosophers of the time had asserted just that, but because Aristotle was so very popular and thought to be the smartest man in the world: many lesser philosophers bought into the "big ball" theory and refused to believe that the ball is in motion. Religious people, however, had several problems with the new idea. It is evident, from the Holy Scriptures, that Jews and Christians were among them. Such people continued to think and speak in terms which we see as evidence of their belief that the world is more or less flat, not spherical as the heathen imagined.When the Church finally embraced Aristotle, 1500 years later, they inherited both: belief in the terraqueous globe, and disbelief in the notion of its motion.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

exactly my point. have you ever been in the middle of the ocean? when you look to the horizon, it actually curves. i don't know how they could have missed that. also, if they would actually stop and think about it, if there was a central gravity point, wouldn't all of the mass around it get into the closest space to the source? that makes a ball. it is also scientifically innacurate according to my statement. if there was a flat earth, then there would have to be a center of gravity much like a flat plane. it would stand to reason that the plane would try to stretch into infinity. therefore the small amount of mass that would have been the earth would crumble and tear itself apart to get to the source of the flat gravity.it would also not make sense that someone could fall off the earth, due to the gravity of the flat plane. once you started to walk off the edge, the next segment of the plane would take hold, much like if you were able to walk around the earth. you don't fall off when you get to antarctica, do you?Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given.

drbill's picture also denies the existence of a flat earth. just an extra bit of information.

I doubt they missed it, but they may have lacked a good theory to explain it. Indeed. And that was Aristotle's argument. In fact, he used that argument to assert that there could be no other worlds. Just this one. Aristotle explained that everything just naturally falls to the middle, but he didn't propose any particular mechanism for that; just that heavy things sink, and lighter things rise.Aristotle got us to thinking about gravity but the idea is really quite mind boggling. The smartest mathematician of the 16th/17th century, Galileo, spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. A few decades after Galileo, Newton was able to describe gravity mathematically, thanks a great deal to the groundwork laid by Galileo. Even so, we still don't know very much about the force itself.Copernicus did not rely on gravitational theory to validate his heliocentric theory. He observed the motion of the heavens and proposed the best explanation. Those who came after: notably Kepler and Newton were able to demonstrate and quantify the natural laws at work in that motion. In like manner, Darwin observed that animals change over time and proposed a theory to explain it; while Crick and Watson, many years later, were able to demonstrate the biological mechanism which made those changes possible.The point being that it is sometimes a very long road from the first casual observation of a phenomenon to widespread understanding of it. It may take even more time before it is accepted as natural, and perhaps even possible for us to manipulate. I find this story, the development of heliocentric theory, particular interesting because the trail intertwines with the literature and religion of the Christian Church; an institution with which I have had a love/hate relationship.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -